jonwel

With Brexit, Britain will presumably also leave the European Economic Area, which is the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. This, apparently, will have an effect on UK pensions received abroad, because cost-of-living increases will not be paid to us expats - unless there's a bilateral agreement with the country of residence. Can anyone answer these two questions:

1) Has any agreement been reached about the position of Brit expats?
2) In any case, why should the amount of a pension paid to UK citizens by the UK government on the basis of UK contributions be subject to agreement with other countries? Shouldn't it be the same wherever you live?

I've already had a grumble about this some time ago. I get a small INPS pension based on contributions paid here and a small British pension paid directly into my bank account, based on contributions in Britain.

Geordieborn

Well 2 should be a simple answer in as much it is a yearly cost of living (in the UK) rise. As for question 1, as far as I'm aware nothing has been agreed for this (or anything else for that matter). Saying that I'm pretty sure the UK and Italy had reciprocal agreement in place before and that they would not have been rescinded simply because they were still needed for people applying late for benefit(s) which were before the UK went into the EU. I've looked for confirmation of this before and not found anything until now, this PDF link is a bit vague but it does seem to back this up.

jonwel

Sorry to come back late! Thanks for your reply, Geordie.
So it seems that if there is an agreement, the cost-of-living increases are paid by the host country (in this case INPS) and not by the country paying the basic pension (in this case DWP). This doesn't seem to fit with my experience, because each year I receive a letter from the UK announcing a small increase and INPS doesn't seem to be involved; the increase is based on the UK cost of living and if I live elsewhere, with a greater or smaller increase in prices, that's my business. So I'm still mystified as to the (alleged) principles involved....

Geordieborn

No, the reciprocal agreement (RA) simply means any UK uprating will be paid/added in any case where there is an RA. I don't know if it is still the case, but with countries like South Africa, Australia and quite a few others we had no RA, therefore any UK pension paid was not uprated if you were living in one of those countries. So if we go back to any RA with Italy, then there will be no change to what you have now.

Serrano

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonwel

Sorry to come back late! Thanks for your reply, Geordie.So it seems that if there is an agreement, the cost-of-living increases are paid by the host country (in this case INPS) and not by the country paying the basic pension (in this case DWP). This doesn't seem to fit with my experience, because each year I receive a letter from the UK announcing a small increase and INPS doesn't seem to be involved; the increase is based on the UK cost of living and if I live elsewhere, with a greater or smaller increase in prices, that's my business.

I don't have direct personal experience of that either, but I'm sure that's not the case. As you say, a person drawing a UK State Pension receives the UK increases (plus Xmas Bonus, and here in Italy also the Winter Heating Allowance).My view mirrors yours, and don't forget that we also suffer the vagaries of exchange rates – again, our choice and we have to accept the consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonwel

So I'm still mystified as to the (alleged) principles involved

Ah well, I think the principle is basically that they can get away with it. For the first few years the difference is relatively small (except that for government, small sums per person add up).By the time it really starts to bite, the 15 years have passed and you don't have a vote in the UK any more.So how much do you expect the government to care at that point? If you really want to see what happens in extreme cases, have a read of this.

I wrote before that small sums per person add up. There are currently about 550,000 UK citizens living outside the UK in countries with no bilateral agreement (i.e. with frozen pensions).Let's assume the average saving to the government is £20 per week per person – not unreasonable, this corresponds to about 5 years of pension freeze if the rate were 2.5% per annum.Total savings 572 million per annum.Now after Brexit, if there is no bilateral agreement, there will be another 250,000 people added to that.Those 250,000 people will be cheated out of (i.e. HMG will save) 48 million the first year, 98 million the second year, almost 150 million the third year, continuing like that.Tell me, how much consideration do you think we'll get?

philat98

modicasa

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8461166.html

ononno

Another bit of scaremongering by remoaners. And it refers to private pensions, not basic DWP pensions.

modicasa

Beh, scaremonggering for leavers, but as nobody really knows anything from this almighty omnishambles, anything is possible. Saw May last week infront of the house committee turn in a performance that wouldnt have got her a job in McDonalds. It looks like we will all become subjects of Lord rees Mogg and as even he says it will take 50 years to pull back from this mess, I would take nothing as certain.

philat98

I feel a bit sorry for May. With her reduced majority she is finding it very difficult to do anything. In my view the blame for the terrible mess can be shared between Cameron who should never have proposed a referendum to solve a squabble among the right and Corbyn who is not an effective opposition leader.

Serrano

I'm not sure that I'd describe the Indy story as scaremongering. Pure sensationalism though, yes without a doubt. Articles like that do no credit to anybody, and indicate how standards of UK journalism have dropped through the floor (and this has nothing to do with Brexit). Just compare the headline "will make it ‘illegal’" with the first paragraph "could be “illegal”" to get the idea. Woefully short of any explanation as to why (though maybe the ABI wasn't asked that question.- in which case it would also reflect on the appallingly low standards we now have from politicians).

The only clue in the article is "pensioners who receive their payments into bank accounts in their adopted countries could be left without cash". So presumably absolutely no problems with having their money paid into a client account at a currency broker, then having it converted and transferred across - which is probably a far, far better solution in any case.

The only other fly in the ointment that I can see is if the UK were to become a tax paradise and get itslef blacklisted by the EU - but that seems rather far-fetched and in any event quite a long way down the road.

And I don't feel the least sorry for Mrs. May. She and she alone seems to have decided what the UK's red lines would be - not seeming to have realised that no Single Market, no Customs Union, no ECJ , upholding the GFA and no border in the Irish Sea is quite simply impossible. Unless Ireland also leaves the EU (which I have heard suggested by some of our 'politicians'). It is also TM who claims to know that this is what the Leave voters voted for ("the will of the people"), whereas the truth is that nobody knows what the Leavers voted for - except to leave the EU.